STEWARDSHIP
Developing Indicators to Monitor
the “Outstanding Opportunities”
Quality of Wilderness Character
BY PETER LANDRES
W
ilderness managers are often faced with difficult and complex tasks. One such task is
fulfilling the legal mandate of the 1964 Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) to provide opportunities
for use and enjoyment of wilderness while protecting and
preserving the wilderness character of the area. The ideas
of use and enjoyment and wilderness character are expressions of societal values for wilderness, but we lack a full
understanding of what these ideas mean. As a result, it may
be difficult for managers to evaluate the success of their
accomplishments as well as some of the far-reaching outcomes of their decisions and actions in wilderness.
This article describes an effort by the USDA Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee to develop national
protocols to monitor trends in selected conditions and stewardship actions related to wilderness character. An important
part of this effort is to develop monitoring related to the “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation” dimension of wilderness character. This article then describes the purpose and scope of a
workshop held in February 2004 to develop a better understanding of these “outstanding opportunities” that would be
used in developing this monitoring. Last, the article introduces several perspectives from the workshop on this
dimension of wilderness character.
Why Monitor Wilderness Character?
Although several agency programs (e.g., air, water, wildlife)
monitor a variety of resources in wilderness, none systematically monitors at the national scale what makes wilderness
unique among all other lands—its wilderness character. There
are two basic reasons for monitoring wilderness character:
8
International Journal of Wilderness
(1) fulfilling the statutory mandates of the 1964 Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness legislation, and (2) to
improve wilderness stewardship. The 1964 Wilderness Act
mandates agency responsibility for preserving wilderness
character. Section 2(a) states that wilderness areas “shall be
administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide
for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character” (emphasis added). In addition, legal
scholars Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999)
assert that Section 4(b) gives the primary management direction for wilderness agencies, that “each agency
administering any area designated as wilderness shall be
responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the
area.” This assertion is reinforced by the Congressional Record
(U.S. Congress 1983): “The overriding principle guiding
management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which
agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (section
4(b)) mandate to preserve their wilderness character.”
Monitoring wilderness character provides information to help
improve wilderness stewardship in several ways. First, describing
wilderness character in tangible terms allows planners and managers at all administrative levels to evaluate potential impacts of
proposed actions and decisions on this fundamental wilderness
concept and ideal. Second, a formal monitoring program allows
the information to become a legacy that managers may then use to
evaluate trends in how wilderness character is changing over long
periods of time that may span many careers. Third, using nationally consistent monitoring protocols allows the information to be
compiled at the regional and national levels to help program
managers review and revise current programs and policies.
DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3
What Is
Wilderness Character?
The 1964 Wilderness Act doesn’t define wilderness character, there is no
legislative history on the meaning of
this phrase (Scott 2002), and there are
many meanings and ways to describe
wilderness character. For the purpose
of monitoring, wilderness character
can be described as the combination
of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguishes
wilderness from all other lands. These
ideals combine to form a complex and
subtle set of relationships among the
land, its management, and the meanings people associate with wilderness.
There are certain aspects of these
biophysical, experiential, and symbolic
ideals that apply to every wilderness
because all wilderness legislation contains a provision that ties management
of the specific wilderness back to the
provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act
(Hendee and Dawson 2002). Although
individual wilderness acts often include
specific exceptions or special provisions, for example allowing the use of
motorized vehicles or installations in
particular wildernesses, no act changes
the 1964 Wilderness Act, Section 2(c)
Definition of Wilderness or the Section
4(b) mandate for “preserving the wilderness character of the area” (Hendee
and Dawson 2002). There are also
unique, place-dependent aspects of
these same ideals that apply to each
wilderness.
How Will Wilderness
Character Be Monitored?
The Forest Service Wilderness Monitoring Committee developed the
conceptual foundation for this monitoring in the draft “Monitoring Selected
Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework”
(hereafter called the Framework). This
Framework is currently under review
and will be published in late 2004. The
committee, through subject-matter experts and their associated teams, is
currently developing detailed monitoring protocols—the what, when, where,
and how data will be collected and
used—in the “Technical Guide for
Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character.”
The Framework develops a set of
logical steps linking the statutory requirement to preserve wilderness
character ultimately with indicators
and measures (See Figure 1). This figure, and the logic behind it, forms a
conceptual model that is the basis for
this monitoring effort. The two elements of this figure enclosed by the
box are derived directly from the 1964
Wilderness Act, whereas the Committee developed the four elements
outside the box. The first step uses the
Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness
to identify specific qualities of wilderness that are related to the concept of
wilderness character. Each of these
legislative qualities of wilderness is
sequentially broken down into a set
of relevant monitoring questions, indicators, and measures. This
hierarchical approach ensures that key
national indicators and measures are
logically linked to the Section 2(c)
Definition of Wilderness, and by inference to wilderness character.
This first step derives four legislative qualities of wilderness that were
chosen to represent the most general
level of the different concepts and ideals, and sometimes the subtle
distinctions among them, from Section
2(c) of the Wilderness Act. These qualities, quoted from the 1964 Wilderness
Act and followed by the Committee’s
interpretation of this quality, are:
• “Untrammeled”—wilderness is unhindered and free from modern
human control or manipulation.
International Journal of Wilderness
Figure 1—The conceptual or logical basis for this monitoring
effort, showing the inferences (arrows) used to develop the
indicators and measures. The arrows show that the statutory
requirement to preserve wilderness character drives selection of
all the subsequent elements and ultimately the data that are
collected.
• “Natural—wilderness ecological
systems are substantially free from
the effects of modern civilization.
• “Undeveloped”—wilderness is substantially without permanent
improvements or modern human
occupation.
• “Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
type of recreation”—wilderness provides opportunities for people to
experience solitude or primitive
and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and
physical and mental challenge.
These four qualities mutually reinforce
one another and together comprise an
approximation of wilderness character
for the purposes of this national monitoring program. All four of these qualities
are equally important, and none is held
in higher regard or to a higher level of
stewardship than the others.
This monitoring provides information about whether selected indicators
related to these four qualities of wilderness, and by inference to wilderness
DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3
9
Figure 2—Olympic Wilderness in summer with Mt. Olympus the third largest glacial system in the conterminous United States. Photo by Bryan Bell and courtesy of National
Park Service, Olympic National Park, Wilderness Information Center.
character, are stable, improving, or
degrading over time within an individual wilderness. No national
standards will be developed because
every wilderness is unique in its biophysical, social, legislative, and
administrative setting (see Figure 2).
Moreover, change in the indicators is
determined only relative to prior conditions within a particular wilderness;
standards and trigger points for action
can therefore only be determined by
each wilderness.
Key national indicators of selected
conditions and stewardship actions will
be chosen for each of these four qualities of wilderness. These indicators will
apply to all wildernesses regardless of
their location, size, ecosystems, use, or
place-dependent aspects. Although
potential indicators are identified in the
Framework document, teams developing the Technical Guide will choose the
final indicators. Indicators will be chosen primarily based on three criteria:
(1) relevance to the wilderness quality,
(2) usefulness to local wilderness managers, and (3) feasibility of using data
that are already being collected or could
be collected with little or no extra cost
as part of an existing monitoring program. For example, the primary potential indicator for the untrammeled
10
quality is actions that manipulate vegetation, wildlife, or aquatic systems.
Forest Service administrative processes
already track actions, hence there is no
cost to collect data for this indicator,
and trends in the number of these
actions over time provide direct feedback to managers on their management for this untrammeled quality of
wilderness. Similarly, a process for recording most constructed features
such as system trails, signs, recreation
developments, or administrative structures is already established so there
is no additional cost for tracking
trends in this potential indicator of the
undeveloped quality of wilderness
over time.
A Workshop to Develop
Indicators for the
“Outstanding Opportunities”
Quality of Wilderness
The Committee felt that the best way
to approach developing indicators for
the “outstanding opportunities” quality of wilderness would be to convene
a workshop of scientists and managers who had direct experience with
this quality of wilderness. There were
two purposes for this workshop. First,
participants would review and vali-
International Journal of Wilderness
date, or modify as needed, the
Committee’s conceptualization of this
“outstanding opportunities” quality.
Second, participants would identify a
potential set of indicators that the team
developing this quality for the Technical Guide would use as a starting
point. An additional purpose of the
workshop, if time allowed, was to
identify information needs and develop a research agenda for this quality
of wilderness.
To facilitate discussion the workshop was limited to a small number
of people, and included six wilderness
managers, two agency scientists, and
six academic social scientists. The
workshop was structured around discussion of the following questions,
which set the goals for monitoring this
“outstanding opportunities” quality of
wilderness:
• What are the meanings and indicators of solitude?
• What are the meanings and indicators of primitive recreation?
• What are the meanings and indicators of unconfined recreation?
To develop potential indicators for
these monitoring questions, the following constraints were imposed on
selecting indicators: (1) they would
DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3
apply to any wilderness throughout
the National Wilderness Preservation
System (see Figure 3) and not to the
place-dependent aspects of a particular wilderness; (2) they would be
useful to local managers and apply to
the entire wilderness; and (3) they
would measure the opportunities for
experiences but not the experiences
themselves.
This last constraint is crucial and
requires some explanation. The 1964
Wilderness Act mandates that managers
provide “outstanding opportunities”
for certain types of experiences. Managers have a profound impact on the
wilderness setting by what they do as
well as what they don’t do, and monitoring this quality provides managers
information on how their actions affect the setting for these types of
experiences. This setting directly affects, in both positive and negative
ways, the opportunity for visitors to
have certain types of wilderness experiences (see Figure 4). For example,
requiring visitors to use designated
campsites reduces resource damage,
but also reduces opportunities for experiencing the unconfined quality of
wilderness. Providing shelters or toilet facilities reduces resource damage,
but also restricts opportunities for the
primitive aspect of wilderness experiences. Providing a bridge across a wild
river allows visitors to experience parts
of the wilderness they may not otherwise be able to, but also reduces
opportunities for the challenge and
discovery that comes from fording the
river. (David Cole explores these issues in greater detail in his article
entitled “Wilderness Experiences.”)
Workshop participants generally
felt that there is sufficient scientific
understanding to begin developing
indicators of the “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation” qual-
ity of wilderness. However, participants also felt that a deeper and better
understanding of these foundational
concepts of wilderness is sorely
needed. Workshop discussions clearly
showed a variety of opinions about the
dimensions that could be, and should
be monitored within this quality of
wilderness. There was considerable
discussion about these and related issues, including:
• whether the single “outstanding
opportunities” quality should be
split into three separate qualities
of solitude, primitive recreation,
and unconfined recreation;
• whether the language from Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 (Public
Law 93-622) on “physical and
mental challenge” and “inspiration” applies to all wildernesses
and therefore should be part of this
national monitoring effort;
• whether monitoring should focus
on the opportunities for wilderness
experiences or the experiences
themselves, or both;
• whether monitoring should focus
on the needs of local wildernesses
versus national monitoring; and
• how actions taken to protect one
aspect of this quality may (and
often do) negatively impact a
different aspect of this same
quality.
The following articles provide
readers with an understanding of the
different perspectives that exist on
these issues. The variety of views expressed demonstrates that there are
different ways of looking at these core
values of wilderness, and perhaps
even more importantly that this variety is an important and vital part of
wilderness. The variety of these perspectives also suggests that managing
for this quality of wilderness character is fundamentally a difficult and
International Journal of Wilderness
Figure 3—Great Sand Dunes Wilderness managed by National
Park Service (CO). Photo courtesy of NPS.
Figure 4—Washington Islands Wilderness managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (WA). Photo courtesy of USFWS.
contentious task, one that requires
thoughtful and deliberative discussion among managers, scientists, and
the public. Much of this discussion
applies to wilderness and similar
backcountry areas around the world
that may have objectives comparable
to the U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System.
In the articles that follow, Chad
Dawson shares his perspectives on the
nature of solitude, potential indicators,
and research questions about indicators of solitude; Steve McCool looks
at unconfined recreation by exploring
a commonly experienced vignette; Bill
Borrie examines the assumptions behind the idea of primitive recreation;
and Joe Roggenbuck offers a detailed
exploration of the origin, benefits,
threats, and indicators of primitive recreation. David Cole completes this set
of articles with thoughts about what
Continued on page 20
DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3
11
The origin of the notion of primitiveness can partly
be found in the early wilderness writings of
Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, and Bob Marshall.
by the adoption of technology and by
engagement (however cautious) with
politics, legal negotiation, and economic success (Vivanco 2003).
The pioneering lifestyle, though
more myth than reality in its time,
might also be difficult to argue for as
an ideal. It could be seen as endorsing
a hunting and gathering, mobile ethos
in clear contrast to an agrarian vision
(secure title, permanent habitation,
and “improvement” of land). I wonder if the attraction of the pioneer
model is its rejection of urban servitude and/or rural peasantry. Although
not exactly celebrating poverty, is the
attraction of the pioneer lifestyle a reaction to the stalled economic status
of rural inhabitants, and the perceived
lack of ability to develop sustainable
and harmonious relationships to nature?
Is the pioneering lifestyle valorizing distant landscapes, open horizons, and
sublime mountain landscapes to the
inconsiderability of nearby, less iconic
landscapes? Although rightfully celebrating distant landscapes, are we
also ignoring the less than admirable
state of our relationship to nearby
nature? When cast in light of these
questions, the celebration of a pioneering lifestyle becomes troublesome.
Conclusion
The search for indicators for the wilderness value of primitive experiences
is a consideration of appropriate social and cultural relations with nature.
In doing so, we need to be wary of the
worldviews we would be endorsing.
Those worldviews may not be as politically appropriate and benign as
when they were first suggested.
REFERENCES
Henberg, M. 1994. Wilderness, myth and
American character. Reprinted in J. B.
Callicott and M. P. Nelson, eds. 1998. The
Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 500–551.
Leopold, A. 1925. Wilderness as a form of land
use. Journal of Land and Policy Utility Economics, 1, 398–404.
Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilderness.
Reprinted in J. B. Callicott and M. P. Nelson,
eds. 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 85–96.
Roosevelt, T. 1897. The American wilderness:
Wilderness hunters and wilderness game.
Reprinted in T. Roosevelt (1998). Hunting
Trips of a Ranchman and the Wilderness
Hunter. New York: Modern Library, 315–782.
Vivanco, L. A., 2003. Conservation and Culture,
Genuine and Spurious. In B.A. Minteer and
R. E. Manning, eds. Reconstructing Conservation: Finding Common Ground. Washington,
DC: Island Press, 57–73.
BILL BORRIE is an associate professor in the
College of Forestry and Conservation,
University of Montana, Missoula, MT
59812-0576, USA. Email:
bill.borrie@umontana.edu.
From LANDRES on page 11
we should be monitoring in this “outstanding opportunities” quality of
wilderness, and the differences between monitoring for opportunities
versus experiences.
Acknowledgments
Workshop cochairs Peter Landres,
Steve McCool (The University of
Montana), and Joe Roggenbuck (Virginia Polytechnic Institute) sincerely
thank all of the participants for their
passion, thoughtfulness, and willingness to work toward the goals (and
abide by the constraints) of this workshop. Participants were Chris Barns
(Bureau of Land Management), Bill
20
Borrie (The University of Montana),
David Cole (Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Research Institute), Denis Davis (National Park Service), Chad Dawson
(SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry), Chad Dear (The
University of Montana), Nicholas
Funda (South African National Parks,
South Africa), Troy Hall (University
of Idaho), Steve Henry (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service), Linda Merigliano
(USDA Forest Service), and Susan
Sater (USDA Forest Service).
REFERENCES
Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and
Protection of Resources and Values (3rd ed.).
International Journal of Wilderness
Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what
the wilderness system is all about. Denver
University Law Review, 76: 369–381.
Rohlf, D., and D. L. Honnold. 1988. Managing
the balance of nature: The legal framework
of wilderness management. Ecology Law
Quarterly 15: 249–279.
Scott, D. W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness
character,” and the challenges of wilderness
preservation. Wild Earth, 11(3/4): 72–79.
U.S. Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98–
40 from the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, March 18: 43.
PETER LANDRES is a research ecologist
with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research
Station, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089,
Missoula, MT 59807, USA. E-mail:
plandres@fs.fed.us.
DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3